Monday, January 31, 2005

Often in discussions of the the Mark of the Beast, it is so easy to get wrapped up in the technological aspects that will control all economic transactions and be a form of survelliance, one often forgets it is also a statement ultimately about who owns us.

Though this moron won't be going to hell for his stupidty and it could probably be said he is as dumb as those nether regions, this idiot that sold his forehead as a billboard provides a bit of prophetic insight into developments coming down the eschatological pike.

Wednesday, January 26, 2005

It is in reference to a Cornell University study so one can hardly blame it on right-wing Republican propaganda.

And speaking of Republicans, over the past several days, a number of Republicans (including President Bush) have stirred up a fuss that Blacks are cheated out of Social Security because on average they do not live as long as Caucasians and such.

From this story, it seems that particular ethnic group more than makes up for it in terms of other welfare entitlement programs though.

Are we going to release comments to the media that Food Stamps are a bad investment of White dollars and that we should instead go to a program of privatized nutritional accounts?

Some courageous academic or think tank scholar should do a study to determine if the reduced statistical longevity has anything to do with the larcenous activity younger members of this demographic are known to wallow in.

Maybe if they would behave themselves, there would be more of them around to collect their Social Security checks.

Maybe if their food stamp allowances were cut, they wouldn’t have as much time on their hands and thus have a better chance of making it to retirement since their time would be spent on work and self improvement rather than seeing how much trouble they can get into.

Interesting, isn’t it, how the government is eager to cut out a program you work to qualify for but seems bent on expanding the scope of unearned handouts?

Saturday, January 22, 2005

When shoppers head to the store during the Christmas season, it is assumed the price is borne by the party giving the gift. However, should these yuletide bequeathals originate from questionable sources, the price extracted can in fact be too high for the recipient.

Though allegedly an act of selflessness and altruism, the act of gift giving is as much about bringing praise and a sense of self-satisfaction to the giver. The act, in fact, bestows a degree of legitimacy upon the giver in the eyes of the receiver and can boost the ego or esteem of the party giving the gift.

This oft-denied reality bounced to the surface this past Christmas quicker than a Hooter girl on a trampoline when the even more ribald counterparts of these risque serving wenches attempted to create a favorable impression of their questionable profession.

In 2003, floozies from Teaser’s strip club distributed toys at the Statesville, North Carolina housing project. This past Christmas, however, administrators declined donations from these purveyors of the lust of the flesh.

The problem is not so much with these loose women and their patrons wanting to spread Christmas cheer to children who allegedly won’t have anything under their trees (apparently these people have never heard of dollar or thrift stores) but rather the way in which these seductresses have gone about doing so in the past.

Often those playing secret Santa deposit their gifts on the doorsteps of the economically challenged, never revealing their identities. No doubt that is why the word “secret” is emphasized; apparently there’s something about the concept ditzy blondes cannot seem to grasp as they distributed the gifts in such an ostentatious manner that they would make a pimp’s tailor blush.

Instead of quietly distributing the gifts under the cover of evening, these ladies of the twilight showed up in limousines and scanty outfits. Those opposed to these titillating histrionics where accused of having a 1940’s mentality (certain aspects of which might actually do us some good).

But perhaps even worse and even more shocking is one of the sources of support for these women of questionable repute. Pastor Jeff Porter of the First Baptist Church of Statesville told the Record and Landmark that the holidays are when differences are to be set aside because “Christmas gives us the chance to cross barriers for the less fortunate. The Bible is full of times when folks of all backgrounds took one step closer to God by acting like Jesus.”

In other words, we ought to set aside our most cherished values and beliefs. Interesting, isn’t it, how those holding to traditional standards are expected to lower them rather then requiring those in the gutter to elevate themselves. The Bible is indeed full of examples where individuals of all backgrounds “took one step closer to God by acting like Jesus.”

However, such accounts of redemption were only accomplished by committing one’s life to the standards to which Christ has called us. It may come as a shock, but there is more to the Biblical message than the proto-Marxian redistribution of goods and property of the hippy Jesus promulgated by apostate ecclesiastical syndicates such as the National Council of Churches.

While Jesus did stress the need to assist the downtrodden, even more central to His message was the condemnation of sin throughout the course of His ministry. Thus, how can individuals claim to be acting in the Lord’s name when they don’t believe sin actually exists, for if they believed sin did they would not take their cloths off in public or advertise that they do so without embarrassment.

Jesus kept His pants on. Shouldn’t those eager to follow His example do the same?

Try as religious liberals might to excuse various transgressions such as homosexuality and fornication by obfuscating Biblical injunctions against these acts, there is little that can be done to deny the connection between acknowledging one’s sin nature and the shame of public nudity.

In Genesis 2:25, before falling into sin, it says Adam and Eve were naked and not ashamed. But after eating of the forbidden fruit, Genesis 3 tells us Adam and Eve realized they needed to conceal their bodies now that sin pervaded every aspect of their being.

Ever since that day our first parents felt the need to cover up their privates, only two groups have countered the moral need for clothing. On the one hand, there are the ignorant such as the National Geographic jungle savages who know no better and on the other are those who unabashedly flout the standards of propriety and decorum.

The deep theological ramifications of nudity in the current dispensation aside, is it really wise to glamorize careers in the sleaze racket as impressionable young eyes look on? If you have no problem portraying strippers and exotic dancers in a favorable light and as pillars of the community, would you like your daughter, sister, or mother to take off her clothes off for a living in front of a bunch of dirty old men?

Furthermore, would you feel comfortable accepting Christmas gifts from a stripper who goes out of her way to make sure you and your child know she is a stripper? If not, why not?

Interesting how the most effusive proponents of hedonistic solipsism become as prudish (sometimes even more so) as the rest of us when their own children are involved. Kind of like how Madonna won’t let her own children watch TV but has made a career of thrusting her own bosoms into the face of the American people.

It has been said there is no such thing as a free lunch. The same could be said of gifts as well. For even though such items do not cost the recipient anything in terms of money, they can extract a price in terms of the indebted loyalty they end up demanding.

Wednesday, January 05, 2005

As many have no doubt heard by now, the nutcase that set himself on fire in front of the White House was a government informant. From his actions, makes you wonder what else he might have been on the government payroll to do or manipulated into possibly doing by his Machiavellian handlers.

Interestingly, these pyrotechnics weren’t the only street theater that transpired less than a week after the reopening of Pennsylvania Avenue to pedestrians. Those bent on fostering a nationwide siege-mentality did not have to wait long for the excuse they needed to turn the people’s boulevard into an off-limits thoroughfare once again.

Some will respond that, in this age of terrorism, we must accept changes to the way of life to which we were accustomed to in less dangerous times. Maybe so, but unless those alterations are in accord with clearly defined and publicly agreed upon rules, these measures are little more than a grab for power no matter how those in positions of authority make the situation sound.

Many of the so-called “security precautions” around the nation’s capital cannot be described any other way. A number, upon careful scrutiny, aren’t even based whatsoever on what civilized individuals classify as duly promulgated regulations but rather upon the arbitrary whims of petty bureaucrats intoxicated by their own delusions of self-importance.

Traditionally, government buildings and monuments in Washington have been admired as symbols of American justice and liberty. However, tourists exhibiting too much awe and enthusiasm for these physical manifestations of the nation’s might might come away from the experience now realizing these structures no longer adhere to the idealistic notions we have all been led to believe these agencies were allegedly created to safeguard.

WUSA TV 9, the Washington DC local CBS affiliate, reported tourists face possible arrest if caught photographing certain government buildings. Various agencies justified these punitive measures on the grounds of new regulations promulgated by the Department of Homeland Security.

Thing is, the Department of Homeland Security admits no such regulations exist prohibiting the photographing of government buildings. However, operatives within that agency insist it is acceptable for security forces to harass you as to what you are doing in areas open to the public.

Maybe some courageous patriot should remind errant authorities that in a free society citizens should not have to divulge such information unless they have actually done something wrong.

Yet even this reluctant admittance will not keep the enthusiasts of unbridled power from devising new ways of asserting their lust for domination over the American people. Even those loyal to our own system, but who endeavor to keep it within its intended bounds of authority, are not safe from these stifling tentacles.

In October, former Idaho Representative Helen Chenoweth-Hage was pulled aside at an airport to receive an additional rifling through her person and possessions. She then inquired to see the regulation authorizing the additional scrutiny.

Her request was denied because the rule is itself deemed “too sensitive” to be looked upon by mere mortals (you’d think it was written across the Ark of the Covenant or something). Like a true patriot, Mrs. Chenoweth-Hage refused to submit and, at her own financial loss, decided not to fly.

Such regulations have little to do with security but are rather about conditioning the American people into accepting greater and greater intrusion into their lives. Today, we pliantly step aside to let the minions of the state fiddle with our belts or bra straps and to rummage through our underwear bags; where will it all end?

There have been threats of female bombers hiding explosives in their vaginas. Does that mean airport screeners will get to boff female passengers to make sure they aren’t concealing anything, with women and husbands objecting detained for not cheerfully placing evasive government directives over personal modesty?

Don’t laugh. Already one woman was forced a few years ago to take a swig of her own breast milk and a number of women have already filed complaints about the wandering hands of overly-enthusiastic security personnel. Pregnant women have been forced to disrobe in order to verify their gestational status.

As William Lind of the Free Congress Foundation remarked about the need to inspect footwear in light of suspected shoe-bomber Richard Reid, thank God he did not have an exploding suppository. Can you imagine what they’d make us take off and look into if he had?

If we are not allowed to see the regulations pertaining to these procedures, how are we to determine what is and is not permissible under the audacious banner of “homeland security”. If we are to be a nation of law rather than of despots, shouldn’t such policies be open to public scrutiny?

Five or ten years ago would so-called Conservatives, Libertarians, or even semi-consistent Liberals let the government get away with refusing to allow citizens to see the very laws it uses to justify the curtailment of our liberties and way of life? How long until Americans will be forced to endure Fallujhan-style security measures with retinal scans on every corner, identification displayed at all times, and mandatory reliance on militarized public transportation? But more importantly, when that day finally arrives, will the average American even care?

Tuesday, January 04, 2005

One Indiana School requires those eating peanut butter to consume their victuals in a separate room because of one student with a peanut allergy.

If the tot is that sickly, why is he allowed to attend school at all?

Frankly, I am not too hip on the stinky slop some Asians eat. Does that mean they should be shunted away to a separte dietary facility? If some one is allergic to fried chicken and watermelon, does that mean Black kids should be sent to their own separate but equal lunchroom?

Where does this stupidity end? In the article, they are already concerned about what to do with the lactose intolerant kids who might get ahold of cheese from kids already brainwashed into being vegetarians: but since they are intolerant, perhaps they get whatever they deserve.